cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25427659
Enjoy a RARE piece of original content from your’s truly, instead of a repost from deep in my dust-covered downloads folder
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25427659
Enjoy a RARE piece of original content from your’s truly, instead of a repost from deep in my dust-covered downloads folder
Legitimately think that they simply did not think the proposal through. It was pretty nakedly an attempt to push back at radical echo-chamber communities, without understanding that rules cut both ways, and in the process of trying to justify and clarify it without being ‘ideological’, managed to just highlight how absurd the proposed rule was to begin with.
The two big problems with .world’s admins is that they’re very much amateurs (which is a hard thing to avoid in our scenario here), and that they, like many centrists, have trouble discerning where their ideology begins and ends. They feel the need to phrase things in ‘fair’ and non-discriminatory terms, but in doing so, often blunder into self-contradictory positions, because ultimately, discrimination (in the sense of discerning and marking) between views is what all rules are based on. The kind of “The law is the law” attitude that people who are accustomed to following, but not making, law, are prone to. One hopes that a mixture of experience and pushback will improve them, with time.
But yeah, had they implemented that, they’d go more auth and right, and I’d probably be packing up all my comms to go to another instance. Again.
@PugJesus
I thought a centrist was someone between “Don’t be Stalin” and “Don’t be Hitler.”
We are discussing in a thread about the political compass, so even strictly going by the meaning of the word “centrist” it wouldn’t put you only on one axis in the authoritarian half.
But in reality a “centrist” is usually referring to someone in support of the status quo or at least someone that doesn’t want to rock the boat too hard. Where exactly that person falls in the ideological spectrum can vary widely between countries, and even if they are not outright conservative in their expressed opinions, the very act of preferring the status quo makes them structurally conservative.
I am not sure if that is the case anymore. In many countries, like the U.S., the left and right have moved, and the center is not really represented by any party anymore. And considering the economy and the problems they see in society, the center wants change these days, not the status quo.
That seems to be a case of mistakenly thinking “the center is where my believes are”.
In the US the Democracts are about as centrist and for the status quo as it gets.
There has been a power struggle in the Democratic Party, and the old guard that were centrists have largely been replaced by those who lean farther left. But both are still fighting over power within the party. In fact, one of the main complaints of Democratic voters is that their beliefs had not changed, but the Democrat Party moved farther and farther away from their beliefs.
I agree, in the sense that I think that a lot of Democrats are indeed centrists, and the Green Party is probably more consistent with what Europeans think is left.
But the current Democratic Party is not was it was 15 to 20 years ago, when it was a centrist, arguably corporatist party. It is not the party of Obama anymore. Now it is divided between corporatists and socialists. It would be inaccurate to call them status quo now, at least on the social end of things, considering all of the changes they are trying to embed into society.